MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033866871

[Review of the book <em>Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity</em>, by H. Koester]

2002· article· en· W7033866871 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - Trinity University (Trinity University) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicItalian Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)Rhetorical questionNarrativeCriticismEarly ChristianityNew TestamentTheme (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The publication of this book completes the second edition of Helmut Koester’s important two-volume introduction to early Christian literature and history, published originally in 1982. Like the second edition of the first volume, which appeared in 1995, this edition seeks to make current the now classic and well-known introductory volume, while maintaining its structure and organization. After covering the formation of the canon, text critical issues and an all too brief introduction to methods—only source, form, tradition, narrative and rhetorical criticism are discussed, the latter two being new to this edition—texts are discussed in chronological and geographical sequence, beginning with traditions about John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul, then covering Palestine and Syria (where he locates both the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and John), and Asia, Macedonia, Greece and Rome. The book is less an introduction to New Testament writings than it is an attempt to paint a comprehensive picture of the development of early Christianity, creating a map of the relationships between the various texts, both canonical and non- canonical. Although one can disagree with the shape of the map and where some of the texts are placed in relation to others, it is extraordinarily useful as a place to start or a point of reference.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.016

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.145 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - Trinity University (Trinity University)Same topicItalian Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207